Karnataka HC: A Neighbour Cannot be Charged With Matrimonial Cruelty under Section 498A IPC  ||  Revisional Power U/S 25B(8) of Delhi Rent Control Act is Supervisory; HC Cannot Revisit Facts  ||  Poverty Cannot Bar Parole; Rajasthan HC Waives Surety For Indigent Life Convict, Sets Guidelines  ||  Delhi High Court: Late Payment of TDS Does Not Absolve Criminal Liability under the Income Tax Act  ||  NCLT Kochi: Avoidance Provisions under Insolvency Code Aim to Restore, Not Punish, Parties  ||  Bombay High Court: In IBC Cases, High Courts Lack Parallel Contempt Jurisdiction over the NCLT  ||  Supreme Court: Concluded Auction Cannot Be Cancelled Merely To Invite Higher Bids at a Later Stage  ||  SC: In Customs Classification, Statutory Tariff Headings and HSN Notes Prevail over Common Parlance  ||  SC: Under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, Notice U/S 10(5) Must be Served on the Person in Possession  ||  Supreme Court: Only Courts May Condone Delay; Tribunals Lack Power Unless Statute Allows    

Meera Santosh Pal And Ors. V. Union Of India And Ors. - (Supreme Court) (16 Jan 2017)

24-week pregnancy allowed to be terminated on ground of danger to life and certain inability of fetus to survive extra uterine life

MANU/SC/0050/2017

Law of Medicine

Petitioner No.1 approached this Court under Article 32 of Constitution of India seeking directions to Respondents to allow her to undergo medical termination of her pregnancy. She apprehended danger to her life, having discovered that her fetus was diagnosed with Anencephaly, a defect that leaves foetal skull bones unformed and is both untreatable and certain to cause the infant’s death during or shortly after birth. This condition is also known to endanger the mother’s life. Crucial consideration in present case is whether the right to bodily integrity calls for a permission to allow her to terminate her pregnancy.

Report of Medical Board clearly warrants the inference that, continuance of pregnancy involves risk to the life of pregnant woman and a possible grave injury to her physical or mental health as required by Section 3(2)(i) of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. Though, pregnancy is into 24th week, having regard to danger to the life and certain inability of fetus to survive extra uterine life, Supreme Court considered it appropriate to permit Petitioner to terminate the pregnancy. Overriding consideration is that she has a right to take all such steps as necessary to preserve her own life against the avoidable danger to it. In circumstances, given the danger to her life, there is no doubt that she has a right to protect and preserve her life and particularly since she has made an informed choice. Exercise of her right seems to be within limits of reproductive autonomy.

In Interests of justice, Supreme Court permitted Petitioner no.1 to undergo medical termination of her pregnancy under provisions of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. Termination of pregnancy of petitioner no.1 will be performed by Doctors of the hospital where she has undergone medical check-up. Further, termination of her pregnancy would be supervised by the above stated Medical Board who shall maintain complete record of procedure which is to be performed on Petitioner No.1 for termination of her pregnancy. With aforesaid directions, Apex Court allowed writ petition in terms of prayer seeking direction to Respondents to allow petitioner no.1 to undergo medical termination of her pregnancy.

Relevant : Section 3 (2)(i) of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971

Tags : PREGNANCY   TERMINATION   DIRECTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved